Sociology and Anthropology in the People’s Republic of China

Martin Whyte & Burton Pasternak

Sociology and anthropology were taught in China as early as 1914 and, by 1949, most major univer­ sities had established sociology departments. The scope of sociology was broad; it often embraced cultural anthropology, demography, and even social work, in addition to sociology. In a few places anthropology moved toward departmental status in its own right, but the American approach - which attempts to integrate cultural anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, and physical antropology - never really took root in China. This is because the main intellectual inspiration for sociology- anthropology in China came from British social anthropology and from the Chicago school of American sociology. Most priminent scholars did some graduate work abroad, and those who identified with anthropology mainly associated themselves with the British structure-functional tradition (social anthropology). As a result, the line between sociology and anthropology was never a sharp one in China. This is still the case in China today, although the reasons may not be quite the same, as we will see shortly.

After 1949 sociology and anthropology fell on hard times. Any science of society of culture that deviated from, or challenged, Marxist-Leninist doctrine was considered a threat - the same atti­ tude prevailed in Stalin's Russia at the time, where sociology was termed a "bourgeois pseudo­ science". Chinese sociologists and anthropologists, considered tainted by Western modes of thought, were suspect. In 1952, during the educational re­ organization campaigns, therefore, sociology was officially proscribed as a discipline; university departments were closed and formal instruction in both sociology and anthropology came to an abrupt

289 end. A number of Chinese sociologists and anthro­ pologists shifted into neighboring disciplines like economics, law, or history. Some ended up even further afield, teaching English or working as librarians, for example. But most found shelter at the Central Academy of Nationalities (founded in Beijing in 1951), where the government sane - tioned continuance of a small component of anthro­ pology known as national minority studies.

The verdict that sociology and anthropology were bourgeois artifacts, unnecessary or even obstructive in a society building socialism, was not lightly accepted by all. During the Hundred Flowers cam­ paign of 1956-57, some leading scholars - like Fei Xiaotong, Wu Jingchao, and Chen Da - dared, with some official encouragement, to openly make a case for the restoration of these disciplines on the grounds that they could provide methods and concepts of use in dealing with China's pressing social problems. But their attempt to revive sociology-anthropology in China was shortlived; during the Anti-Rightist campaign of 1957 those who had espoused this cause dropped from public view after being assailed and branded as rightists. China would have to wait more than two decades before conditions would once again be suitable for an attempt to revive these fields. It is a painful irony that the current effort to do so involves most of the same arguments and many of the spokes­ men prominent during the ill-fated attempt of 1957.

Since the death of Mao Zedong and the fall of the Gang of Four in 19 76, China's leadership has come to accept the view that academic knowledge may indeed be useful and perhaps even necessary in identifying, analyzing, and dealing with China's problems, and this conviction has made it possible for sociology to begin a modest, tentative re- emergence. The first formal step in that direction took place in March 19 79, when the Chinese Socio­ logical Research Association was established under the presidency of Fei Xiaotong. This nationwide professional society (centered in Beijing) is intended to foster contacts among sociologists, anthropologists, and others with interests in these fields. We were told that some sixty individuals

290 attended the first meeting of this association and that the number of members has grown rapidly since. Two or three months before our visit to China a chapter of this association was formally estab­ lished in Shanghai. That chapter reportedly now has attracted over 140 members.

The formation of this association is only the first step in a more ambitious disciplinary rebuilding effort. It is expected to provide both inspiration and direction for developments elsewhere and in other areas. It is hoped, for example, that the activities of the association will create an interest in the establishment of university depart­ ments, research institutes, specialized journals, and the other normal accoutrements of any recog­ nized academic and research discipline.

A theme commonly heard in China now is that truth is to be derived from facts rather than from political dogma, and the old argument that Marxism- Leninism-Maoism makes a field like sociology- anthropology unnecessary has been abandoned. Still, sociology-anthropology is officially constrained to develop in a clearly indigenous form, one suited to current Chinese conditions and designed to solve officially designated problems. It is required that this new Chinese discipline serve the "Four Modern­ izations" and provide tools of clear practical use in solving pressing social problems. Chinese authorities openly admit that their society suffers from a number of serious social problems - over­ population, juvenile delinquency, unemployment, family and marital conflicts, and housing problems, in particular - and that Chinese Marxism does not provide a clear understanding of, or solution to, these problems. It is hoped (and expected) that the emerging sociology-anthropology will provide a set of methods for analyzing these problems systematically and scientifically, and will produce information and proposals that will aid in their resolution. While sociology-anthropology finds new life in terms of this mandate there are also strictures involded - it is still maintained that China must avoid simply importing the "bourgeois" versions of these disciplines from the West. But how an indigenous form of sociology-anthropology

291 will develop where none has been allowed to breathe for a generation is unclear. Many of the scholars we spoke to indicated that they would draw selec­ tively upon foreign concepts, methodologies, and experiences, and that they would look for these inputs not only to the West, but also to Japan, Eastern Europe, and even to the Soviet Union. But ultimately it must be their decision as to which problems will be studied and how.

The effort to construct a new sociology-anthro- pology in China is being spearheaded by officers of the Chinese Sociological Research Association, many of whom are also affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. Particularly active in this regard are Fei Xiaotong, Chen Dao (Deputy Chief of the planning section of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), and Wang Kang (Administrative Secretary of the Chinese Socio­ logical Research Association). Within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences a new Institute of Sociology is being organized; it probably will be established formally in 1980, with Fei as its head. At present, however, this incipient Institute is preparing for its own inauguration on the basis of very meager resources. About ten staff members work out of a borrowed apartment without the benefit of a library, secretarial support, or other office facilities. We were told that it was still premature to formulate concrete research tasks and objectives for this Institute, since its most immediate mission will be organizational - to see to the creation of a new, Chinese version of sociology-anthropology throughout the country.

While priority is clearly being given to problems of organization at the national level, neither the new Institute of Sociology nor the Chinese Sociological Research Association, with headquar­ ters in Beijing, can actually exert any direct control over developments in provincial social science academies or in China's universities (the former come under provincial government and party control, while the latter fall under the Ministry of Education). How these two fledgling organizations will fulfill their organizational objectives is therefore unclear. It is our impression that their

292 influence is informally exerted - by cultivating support within the national political leadership on the one hand, and by using personal relation­ ships to urge developments in the provinces.

The staff of the soon to be established Institute of Sociology may be augmented as a result of a nationwide research worker selection examination scheduled for spring of 1980. This examination is intended to uncover a core of individuals who, by virtue of their prior training or practical experience, will be capable of quickly acquiring the skills essential for social science research. There is no way to anticipate when the Institute of Sociology might begin to train new graduate students, however, given the extreme scarcity of space and skills under which they must labor.

Another Institute of Sociology has recently been established in Shanghai, under the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. This group is very new indeed - we were told that it had been established only two or three months before our arrival. The Sociol­ ogy Institute in Shanghai reportedly has about twenty staff members, its resources are meager, and its members have formulated no clear research objectives as yet. None of the other cities we visited, apart from Beijing and Shanghai, had sociological research institutes or concrete plans to establish them. Any such plans would be un­ realistic at this time given the extreme shortage (or complete absence in many cases) of people trained or knowledgeable in the field. The devel­ opment of sociological research institutes (and of professional associations) in China is hampered not only by the scarcity of trained personnel and space, but also by the virtual absence of essential library resources and the lack of the kind of foreign language preparation that would make it possible for scholars and researchers to make use of resources from abroad were they to be made available.

Even now, however, some thought is being given to future research. A research planning meeting was scheduled (and later held) in March 19 80, and scholars we spoke to in Beijing were hopeful that

293 this national conference would serve to stimulate concrete research projects, the initial results of which might be available as early as 1981. But as of the time of our visit, it was still very unclear which of a long list of social problems would be studied first, what methods of analysis might be preferred, and who would assume respon­ sibility for what tasks.

One step behind the effort to form sociology research institutes and associations is the attempt to reestablish departments of sociology in China's universities. Although higher author­ ities (including the Ministry of Education) have given the green light to this effort, at the time of our visit to China the only definite decision to set up such a department had been made at Fudan University in Shanghai. Fudan has a branch campus within city limits where day (i.e., non­ boarding) students are enrolled, and here a group of fifteen or so scholars has been drawn from various departments to form a new department of sociology. While the social anthropologist, Tian Rukang, may become associated with this new department ( he is presently a member of Fudan's history department), many of those assigned to staff it so far have had no formal training in sociology or anthropology. One of the two instructors we met, Xia Jie, had had one sociology course while a student of law (he went on to teach Russian in night school); the other, Pan Shuqi, was a historian who had never had a course in sociology. Instruction in sociology will nonethe­ less begin in fall of 1980, we were to told; a group of second and third year undergraduates (thirty or forty of them) may be transferred from other departments into this new department of sociology. The instructors we met envisioned the eventual development of a four year undergraduate program, but were still discussing what courses should be taught and how. Courses being considered included sociological principles, the history of sociological thought, theory and methods of research, statistics, and population. We were told that students would be required to conduct some fieldwork, but it was unclear what that meant in concrete terms. There was no expectation that

294 graduate level training would be introduced at Fudan in the foreseeable future. Those responsible for preparing this new program are still discussing how to provide suitable reading materials for the courses to be offered, and they were naturally quite interested to learn what Americans include in their basic sociology courses. The current strategy seems to be to select excerpts form pre- 1949 Chinese texts (by people like Sun Benwen and Chen Da) as well as from more recent European, American, Japanese, Eastern European, and Soviet texts. Since our colleagues at Fudan do not have access to many of these foreign materials as yet, however, and since most of them do not seem to have the foreign language skills that will be needed to do this job, it is difficult to imagine how basic reading materials can be made ready by the time the program begins.

While the faculty members we spoke with were con­ vinced of the need to train students to do empir­ ical research, they had no clearly formulated ideas about what methodological options were available. They were also unclear as to what occupational niches their students might be equipped to fill; they anticipate only that graduates of their program might be assigned to government or mass organization units concerned with social problems. All in all it seems to us like a rather precarious start for the first of China's new sociology departments.

The only other likely location for establishment of a sociology department in the near future is in Beijing, but there the strategy is clearly more cautious and conservative. The preference seems to be to wait until preparations are further along before formalizing things. It is clear that a department of sociology will soon be established in Beijing, but it is not certain where it will be located - at Beijing University or at People's University. Many people we spoke with thought that a department might be in place as early as fall of 1980, and most believed that it would be located at Beijing University, mainly because the wider range of disciplines represented there would make it possible to design a sociology

295 curriculum with a relatively small core of new courses. A department at Beida would be able to draw upon courses and students in many other departments. If a sociology department is ulti­ mately established at Beida, a likely candidate for Chair would be Lei Jieqiong. Presently in the Department of International Politics at Beida, Professor Lei did graduate work in sociology at USC in the early 19 30's. She joined the law faculty at Beida after 1952, eventually became a dean, and now serves in a number of posts. She is a vice­ mayor of Beijing city, vice-chair of the Women's Federation, and vice-chair of the Chinese Socio­ logical Research Association.

If Beida is to become the home of China's second sociology department a number of problems will have to be overcome. For one thing it may be necessary to create this department by drawing faculty from other departments, and the transfer of personnel from one department to another is not easily accomplished. Establishment of a sociol­ ogy department at Beida would also require that university authorities reverse a decision made in 1979 (in keeping with the national economic consolidation campaign) not to start any more new departments. But if a sociology department finally does get going at Beida it is likely to be some­ what different from the one at Fudan - it is likely to begin by training graduate rather than under­ graduate students. The major thrust in Beida is likely to be on training a few new graduate students (yanjiu sheng) and on retraining a few people with practical experience in agencies dealing with social problems (jinxiu sheng). Only after these initial graduate students have been equipped to join the teaching staff would a regu­ lar undergraduate curriculum be initiated.

While we may expect to see the emergence of two (quite different) sociology departments in China in the next year or so - one in Beijing, the other in Shanghai - it is unlikely that there will be similar developments elsewhere for the time being. The number of people with any disciplinary preparation is too few and the bureaucratic obstacles to transferring personnel from one work

296 unit to another are also formidable. Given the tortured history of sociology in China, moreover, local authorities also may be inclined to wait awhile before giving their full support to any serious effort to feed this small fire.

Other measures to develop the field are also under discussion in China. At the time of our visit no sociological journals were being published in China, but there was talk of initiating them in Beijing and in Shanghai. For the present, articles of sociological and social-antropological interest are published in more general periodicals like Shehui Kexue Zhanxian, a social science journal published in Jilin Province, and in various university journals. Translations of Western sociological works have been selectively made since the mid-1970's. Some have appeared in a journal of social science translations published under the auspices of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Guowai Shehui Kexue). Unfortu­ nately this journal is classified neibu (for Chinese use only), and we were not permitted to see it. Institutional subscriptions to major Western journals are now being resumed, but the Chinese are having considerable difficulty sorting out the variety of specialized journals and deciding in which they should invest their very limited foreign exchange. Western textbooks and monographs are also in short supply; social scientists in various universities expressed the view that their requests for books have lower priority than those of colleagues in the natural sciences. Collections of books in sociology and anthropology are being assembled in the United States for shipment to the Institute of Sociology in Beijing, but that Institute still does not have suitable space for their storage, and no means have been devised to make these books available to interested readers outside Beijing.

Sociologists and anthropologists in China are aware that quantitative methods and computer technology have become vital parts of the socio­ logical-anthropological enterprise in the West, but most have little familiarity or firsthand experience with either and are unlikely to have

297 easy access to computers in the near future. A more serious problem, however, is the general un­ familiarity with the concepts and methodologies associated with empirical research in the West. Many of those we spoke with seemed to equate socio­ logical and anthropological research with the systematic collection of descriptive information about social problems. No clear distinction is made between social research, case study, survey, or investigation, and the casual use of these terms is likely to lead to communications problems when Western sociologists and anthropologists meet their Chinese counterparts.

Another very important problem that remains to be worked out in China concerns the boundaries of sociology and the implications these have for organizational forms and access to resources. The problem seems most acute in terms of sociology's relationships to minority studies and to demo­ graphy.

A number of key people hitherto identified with national minorities research have recently been shifted into sociology as this field finds new life. During our visit we sensed a certain rivalry and competition between those remaining in national minority studies and those shifting into sociology, and we understand that personal and political differences with roots in the past exacerbate these feelings. While Chinese trained in anthropology are no longer wedded to the structure-functional tradition that characterized British anthropology in the past, there is little indication that they are interested in moving toward an anthropology that integrates cultural anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, and physical antropology. (Rumors that an anthropology department might soon be established along these lines at Zhongshan Univer­ sity in Guangzhou turned out to be unfounded, al­ though there apparently had been some discussion of the possibility there.) It seems more likely that the thin line between sociology and social- anthropology that characterized the field in the past will become thinner still. Some Chinese trained in anthropology may choose to identify mostly with the newly revived sociology and draw

298 a sharper line between themselves and those who continue to study China's national minorities. In a sense, anthropology as a discipline has become more fragmented in China than ever before. The sources of this fact are both intellectual and political, and an awareness of the domestic issues involved is crucial if foreign anthropol­ ogists hope to avoid potentially dangerous shoals.

That part of anthropology known in China as national minority studies survives in a number of specialized academies and research institues. We were told that there are now nine National Minority Academies (Minzu Xueyuan) in China - including ones in Beijing, Chengdu, Nanning, Kunming, Lanzhou, Wuhan, and in Guiyang. There are also six National Minority Research Institutes (Minzu Yanjiu Suo) in China - in Beijing, Kunming, Chengdu, Urumqi, in Guiyang, and in Guangzhou. While in China we had an opportunity to visit the academies in Beijing and Chengdu and to meet members of the national minorities research insti­ tues in those two cities.

While the faculty of the various academies may undertake some research, their major function is to educate students and cadres from China's national minority areas. Scholars in the various nationalities research institutes, on the other had, are specifically charged with responsibility for research. Conversations with members of the nationalities research institutes in Beijing and in Chengdu indicate that little or no new research is underway or planned at the present time, however.

Much of the energy of researchers involved in national minorities work is likely to be occupied for some time to come with editing and publishing materials acquired during massive field investiga­ tions conducted during the period 1956-63, but never published at the time. A number of articles and books on the Manchus, Hui, Mongols, Yi, Yao, and other groups have already been published or shortly will be.

Graduate students (future researchers) are being trained at the Institute of National Minority

299 Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Science in Beijing and also in the Central National Minorities Academy. The Institute, unlike the Institute of Sociology, is already functioning and has a staff of at least twenty-six. We were told that eighteen graduate students (chosen from among 500-600 applicants to this Institute) are now in their second year of training. No new students were admitted to the program in 19 79 due, we were told, to lack of space and staff but it is hoped that entrance examinations will be held soon again - possibly in May or June of 1980. Graduate training at the Institute reportedly requires three years. Courses stressed include forgeign languages, Marxist theory, ethnographic methodology, and specialization in some ethnic group. Training is mainly on a tutorial basis, with two or three graduate students being assigned to a researcher. The Institute itself is composed of four divisions or sections: 1) theory (which seems mainly con­ cerned with the definition and delineation of ethnic groups as well as with nationalities policy and problems); 2) ethnology (which focuses on discriminating levels of societal development in Marxist terms); 3) history (of relations with Han peoples up until 1949); and 4) national Minority languages.

The Institute of Nationalities already publishes several journals - Minzu Yanjiu (Nationalities Research), Minzu Yuwen (Nationalities Languages), and Minzu Yioong (Nationalities Translation). There is also a non-academic journal devoted to nationality matters, Minzu Tuanjie (Nationalities Solidarity).

Judging from our conversations with scholars and researchers involved in national minorites work (in Beijing and Chengdu), their notion of research seems excessively restricted and perhaps even arcane, when judged by the perspectives of Western anthropology. Apart from the fact that researchers must limit their interests to only 6% of China's population, their work is expected to inform government policy and goals with respect to the national minorities. Research therefore focuses on narrow and politically weighted questions - for

300 instance, precisely how many different ethnic groups exist, which people belong to which groups, at what stage in the Marxist developmental trajec­ tory each is, and what are the main contradictions that characterize specific groups.

Other components of what Americans consider an integrated anthropological discipline continue to be treated separately in China. Archaeology is taught in a few universities (including Beijing and Zhongshan universities), usually in departments of history, but is otherwise conducted primarily by museum staffs. We were told that Beijing Normal University offers an introductory course in ethnology (prehistory and primitive peoples) as part of the history curriculum in that institution. At Fudan University we met a member of a physical anthropology teaching group - located in the biol­ ogy department of that university. Apparently this is the only university in all of China where physical anthropology is taught.

For the present, anthropology as we know it in the United States finds no counterpart in China's universities or research institutes. Scholars in archaeology and physical anthropology do not seem to feel that joining with the new sociology would be to their advantage. Even less are they attracted to the thought of a merger with national minority studies.

The prospects for development in demography are far better than those in either sociology or anthropology. Demography has become a high priority field which sociology would like to "capture". Like sociology and anthropology, demography lost its respectability and credentials as a discipline in the 1950's, but scholars in that discipline were mainly transferred to departments of economics. They were discouraged from working on population matters from 1957 until 1974, when the Beijing Economics College established a Population Theory Research Institute (later moved to People's Univer­ sity) . This Institute has now become a pacesetter for demographic development elsewhere in China. In view of the seriousness with which China's leaders view the population issue, and also in

301 response to the need to quickly prepare for a nationwide census scheduled for 1981, demography and demographic training are being given high priority. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities is contributing substantially to Chinese efforts to establish demographic research and training units in China and will reportedly be directly involved in helping the Chinese estab­ lish ten regional population research units. But the precise organizational form that demographic work will ultimately take in China is still under discussion. At issue is whether demography is to be organized under economics, as part of sociol­ ogy, or as an independent discipline. At the time of our visit, for example, CASS had not yet decided whether to set up a separate Institute for Popula­ tion Studies, or to incorporate demographic research under the new Institute of Sociology. Since that time, however, separate recruitment exams have been announced for sociology and demo­ graphy, to recruit new researchers. In People's University the Population Theory Research Institute is an independent unit with twenty or so staff members (not all of them researchers). In addition to its research functions this Institute is currently training two graduate students and is responsible for teaching undergraduate courses on population to students from other departments. Professor Wu Cangping, the Columbia-trained demo­ grapher who met us, felt that his institute's affinities were closer to economics than to sociol­ ogy.

At Beijing University there is a population research office that is subordinate to the department of economics. In the Beijing Economics College there is a labor economics department, several members of which specialize in demographic matters. When we visited Sichuan University we found a new popu­ lation institute there that has brought together some twenty people from various departments (history, biology, economics, and even radio!) to do research, particularly in the area of historical demography. The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences also has a Population Theory Institute which has just been established, and which is now planning to train graduate students. At Fudan University we

302 found a Population Research Office under the Department of Economics (representatives of which expressed the view that their work brought them closer to economics and geography than to sociol­ ogy) . In Guangdong, the provincial Philosophy and Social Science Association recently established a Population Research Office, and individuals in the economics and geography departments at Zhong- shan University are also said to be working on population matters.

Interest in the development of demographic skills and research is clearly strong and widespread. There were two nationwide academic meetings focusing on population and demographic matters recently - one in Beijing in late 19 78, the other in Chengdu in late 19 79. At the Chengdu meeting plans were announced for the formation of a national demographic professional association (we understand that local population associations have already been formed in several places). The wide­ spread interest in demography, and its ties to an established discipline, economics, make the effort to "capture" demography for sociology seem unlikely to succeed. It is possible, however, that parts of demographic work could develop within sociology as well as in other contexts.

Despite the extensive interest in demography in China, development in this field struck us as very uneven. The Population Theory Institute at People's University is generally considered far ahead of the rest of the field. The name of this Institute is somewhat misleading, however, since its personnel are actually engaged in empirical re­ search as well as in work on theoretical matters. According to Wu Cangping, staff of the Institute are trained in sampling techniques, are actually conducting surveys in the Beijing area that closely parallel methods used in the London-based World Fertility Survey, and are making projections of future population trends for use by the Beijing city government. Workers at the Institute are said to be in regular contact with people in the State Statistical Bureau and reportedly have access to population data and computer facilities there (they hope to have their own computer in the

303 future). The two graduate students at the Insti­ tute take courses in foreign languages, mathemat­ ical statistics, econometrics, and linear program­ ming, as well as in basic demography, history of population theory, the development of the Chinese population, and world population growth. This year the Institute plans to begin publishing a special­ ized journal on population studies. This was the only center of demographic work we visited that actually seemed to be conducting empirical re­ search that bears some resemblance to our con­ ception of the enterprise. It is unfortunate that People's University is still "off bounds" for foreign students and researchers.

Elsewhere, the situation was less encouraging. In spite of the recognized need for research that might help reduce rates of population growth, the people we spoke to in places like Chengdu and Shanghai seemed unable to transcend arcane ques­ tions of population theory and debates about historical trends in population. We understand that two people were recently sent from Sichuan University to Cairo to attend training courses in demography run there by UNFPA. It is possible that when these people return they will be a significant training resource for their colleagues. In Guang­ zhou the situation is even less encouraging than in Chengdu. The local Population Research Office there has only four members, none of whom have received any formal training in demography (two have backgrounds in comparative literature). All questions of substance from us were generally sidestepped. The Chinese are clearly attempting to follow forms and guidelines established by the UNFPA, but ouside of People's University, it is our impression that conformity is more formal than substantive.

At the time of our visit there were several other specialities that we would include in sociology in the United States which appear to be developing separately in China. Our information on these specialities is scanty. When sociology was revived in the Soviet Union in the late 1950's, first priority went to studies of industrial sociology and to problems of worker motivation. These are

304 recognized as serious problems in China these days as well, but they were not included in the lists of social problems we were told Chinese sociolo­ gists would be studying. It is not clear to us where research on industrial sociology and psychol­ ogy will develop. Perhaps this will occur in economics departments and institutes, although our discussions with such units gave no indication that that would be the case. Perhaps these special­ ties will develop in separate industrial management schools and institutes, or in units like the labor economics department at Beijing Economics College. Discussions of industrial management reform seem to fucus on work on the national system of indus­ trial management - there seems to be little work on changes within industrial enterprises as they affect worker psychology. However, we understand since the time of our trip that the Institute of Socioloqv in Beijing has been contacted by in­ dustrial uinistries about beginning research on worker motivation.

Social psychology, now mentioned as another field worthy of revival in China, seems likely to devel­ op independently of sociology, mainly because psychology is considered a natural science in China. Psychology is therefore the responsibility of the Chinese Academy of Sciences rather than of CASS. In universities, too, psychology is located in natural science divisions. There are only a few separate departments of psychology in China - at Beijing University, at Hangzhou Univer­ sity, and at Shanghai Normal University - but courses in educational psychology and child devel­ opment, expressed a clear awareness of the value of having problems like juvenile delinquency, educational "tracking", marital discord, and worker motivation studied from a social psychological viewpoint, but he knew of no specific efforts to develop such studies, or to push psychology as a discipline to develop in this direction. It seems unlikely, then, that the potential link between sociology and psychology will be developed in the near future. However, since the time of our trip we understand that discussions have started about forming a Chinese Mental Health Association. At least in this one area both sociologists and

305 psychologists might be involved in research work.

While problems of texts, journals, ability to handle foreign languages, access to and familiarity with computers, and so forth are all very important, still the central problem in the effort to rebuild sociology and anthropology (and demography) in China remains the question of personnel. How do you staff universities and institutes in fields where training has been lacking for nearly thirty years? The Chinese are pursuing several rebuilding strategies, each of which has certain drawbacks. First, those people formally trained in sociology and anthropology before 1952 who are still capable of teaching or doing research may be put back in harness. This is already being done, and the national researcher examinations scheduled for this spring will undoubtedly make it possible to identify and place others. Crash training courses are also being planned. Professor C.K. Yang of the University of Pittsburgh is now assembling a small group of scholars (from Pittsburgh and from the Chinese University of Hong Kong) to go to Beijing this summer to run a short term training (or retraining) course of six to eight weeks. As we understand it, the course will cover concepts, statistics, and research methods appropriate for studying the social impact of modernization. Another short term training course on demography is also being discussed. Such short term training programs are designed to bring the older generation of sociologists and anthropologists somewhat up- to-date, but these people have been out of touch with the field for so long that this will be no simple task. Many of the participants are also very old. The fact that most of them were formerly associated with Western traditions may also raise some question as to their suitability for estab­ lishing a truly indigenous Chinese sociology- anthropology.

Apart from this effort to quickly retrain older scholars, the Chinese are also arranging to send potential researchers and teachers abroad for formal training in sociology, anthropology, and demography. One person is already studying demo­ graphy at Brown University, and two more have just

306 been sent to study anthropology at the City Univer­ sity of New York. Other possibilities for training abroad are being considered, but there are definite limits on what the Chinese can accomplish in this regard in the near future, and it is unlikely that many teachers or researchers can be generated this way. For one thing, training abroad, even in a non-degree status, takes time. Since Chinese priorities preclude more than the most modest investment in training in these areas, furthermore, the new opportunities for study abroad will depend on the willingness of foreign institutions to provide fellowships and scholarships for Chinese students with less than optimal preparation. The Chinese, for their part, are more interested in training than in degrees for the present, and their preference would be to send scholars abroad for one or two years of training and then to have them return to fill research and teaching positions until other, younger people can be prepared and sent for longer, more formal periods of training abroad. But in America scholarships and fellowships may not be readily available for Chinese candidates in sociology, anthropology, or demography because most of the applicants will lack solid backgrounds in foreign languages, as well as training in social sciences and mathematics. There is also the distinct possibility that people trained abroad will, on their return to China, be tainted by their exposure and be in danger of being labelled "bourgeois" sociologists once again.

Still another effort is intended to make full use of individuals who have acquired pratical expe­ rience dealing with social problems through past work in government agencies and mass organizations (like the Communist Youth League or the Women's Federation). The plan is to give selected individ­ uals of this sort short training courses designed to prepare them to conduct systematic research on various social problems, or possibly even to teach others the principles essential to such research. These people, trained in China, might well be considered less tainted by the bourgeois values that accompany foreign training and, for this reason, a number of people in China recommend that such domestic training be stressed. In practice,

307 however, the capacity to train large numbers of researchers and teachers in China is severely limited by the lack of a corps of trained teachers, and transforming these practitioners into re­ searchers would involve a major change in their way of thinking. All three of the training strate­ gies described above are likely to be pursued in tandem, and it remains to be seen whether the scholars produced in each track will be able to cooperate with one another for the general benefit of the field.

The future of sociology and anthropology in China remains uncertain for yet another reason. Given the absence of a corps of trained researchers and the limited resources available for training and development in these fields, it is difficult to see how our Chinese colleagues will be able to fulfill the mandate set for them. While the promise that sociology will provide tools to use in solving China's social problems justifies the restoration of the disciplines, these high expectations might be difficult to fulfill even with adequate person­ nel and other resources. There is another possible danger. In a classic restatement of the ti-yong formula, China's leaders seem to think that certain foreign technical methods and concepts can be isolated from their "bourgeois essence" and applied to Chinese problems. This may prove diffi­ cult to do. As newly trained sociologists begin to systematically test alternative hypotheses, their willingness to face the possibility that ideologically favored hypotheses might be falsi­ fied could cause conflicts with their employers and patrons. It is difficult to predict what would happen if research designed to evaluate, inform, or to recommend policy is either ineffective or challenges official commitments and assumptions. Should this happen, there is no doubt that critics already waiting in the wings will once again use the opportunity to press for the termination of further development and for a withdrawal of official support for sociology-anthropology.

In conclusion we would like to convey to our colleagues some sense of Chinese responses to our inquiries about opportunities for research and

308 the changes of collaborative research with Chinese colleagues. Several American anthropologists or sociologists are now in the field in China or have recently returned from periods of fieldwork there. Until now, most of these projects have been facilitated by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The Academy's increasing influence on national policy has not reduced and may even have increased its political vulnerability. Officials at CASS are therefore highly sensitive to projects that are either potentially costly in terms of the manpower required, or that are potentially embarrassing politically. Collaborative fieldwork with Chinese is said to be at least two years away for most foreigners; there is still too much suspicion of foreigners and too much concern that longterm, close association with them may render one politically vulnerable at some later time. But collaboration is even now not entirely out of the question - a lot depends on who proposes such collaboration, with whom, the nature of the project, and the routing of the request. Projects likely to be best received are those that are clearly relevant to problems of Chinese concern and interest. Projects involving access to uncata­ logued archives, government documents, multiple locations, access to archaeological sites, or to national minority populations are likely to meet considerable resistance.

APPENDIX TO REPORT ON SOCIOLOGY-ANTHROPOLOGY- DEMOGRAPHY (an asterisk indicates individuals actually met during our visit)

Beijing:

*Fei Xiaotong, President, Chinese Sociological Research Association (CSRA), Director-designate of the soon-to- be-established Institute of Sociology of CASS. Author of Peasant Life in China, Earthbound China, and other works. *Chen Dao, Vice-president, CSRA; Deputy director-designate of the Institute of Sociology, CASS; Deputy director of the Planning Section, CASS. *Wang Kang, Administrative Secretary, CSRA; Deputy director-

309 designate, Institute of Sociology, CASS; author of a book on Wen Yiduo. *Lei Jieqiong, Vice-president, CSRA; Professor, Beijing University Department of International Politics (and possible future chair of a Department of Sociology there); Vice-Mayor of Beijing City; Vice head of the Women's Federation; did graduate work in America at USC in the early 1930s. *Luo Qing, Vice-president, CSRA; by one account he teaches economics at People's University; by another he is a retired former President of Beijing Economics College. *Yuan Fang, Member CSRA; Chairman of Economic Planning Department at Beijing Economics College; studied sociology-anthropology at Qinghua University. * Zhang Luochun, Member-designate, Institute of Sociology, CASS; a specialist in population trained at Qinghua University, where he formerly taught; a recent visitor to America with a group of population specialists. *Li Songying, Member, CSRA board of directors; by one account he is a statistician at the Bank of China; by another he is a teacher of statistics at People's University; studied sociology-anthropology at Quinghua University, where he formerly taught. *Liu Zheng, Member, CSRA board of directors; responsible person, Population Theory Research Institute, People's University. *Wang Liangzhi, Member of the Institute of Nationalities, CASS, but apparently slated for transfer to the Insti­ tute of Sociology; member of the SCRA board of direc­ tors; interested in aborigines on Taiwan. * Zhao Fan, Advisor to the new Institute of Sociology; formerly a member of the Institute of Nationalities. * Wang Zhicheng, Member of the new Institute of Sociology. * Cao Chengzhang, Member, CSRA board of directors. * Wang Xiaoyi, Member, CSRA board of directors, affiliated with the Institute of Nationalities, CASS (but reportedly slated for transfer to the new Institute of Sociology); studied sociology-anthropology at Yen- jing University; has done fieldwork among the Yi and in Tibet; now beginning advanced study in anthropology at City University of New York. *Song Jiading, Member, CSRA; affiliated with the Institute of Nationalities, CASS (but reportedly slated for transfer to the new Institute of Sociology); studied linguistics at the Central Nationalities Academy and did graduate work there in ethnology; has studied Li and Zhuang peoples; now beginning advanced graduate

310 work in anthropology at City University of New York. * Zhang Zhiyi, Member, CSRA board of directors; affiliated with the Institute of Economics, CASS; studied sociol- ogy-anthropology at Qinghua University and taught sociology at Yunnan University; coauthor (with Fei Xiaotong) of Earthbound China. *Wei Zhangling, Member, CSRA; member of the Information Institute, CASS. *Li Youyi, Member, CSRA board of directors, affiliated with Institute of Nationalities, CASS; studied sociol- ogy-anthropology at Yenjing University; did fieldwork in Tibet in 1944-47. *Tian Xueyuan, Member, CSRA; demographer in Institute of Economics, CASS. *Pan Naimu, Member, CSRA board of directors; daugter of the deceased sociologist, Pan Guandan. *Lin Yaohua, Professor, Central Nationalities Academy; Vice-president of the CSRA; studied sociology-anthro- pology at Yenjing University (and perhaps for a period at Harvard); former chairman of sociology at Yenjing; author of The Golden Wing, The Lolo of Taliangshan, and other works. *Chen Yongling, Member, SCRA; Vice-chairman, Department of History, Central Nationalities Academy; studied sociol- ogy-anthropology at Yenjing University; studied Muslim peoples of Xinjiang Province. * Wu Heng, Member, CSRA; Professor, Central Nationalities Academy; studied sociology-anthropology at Yenjing University and did work on the Yi. Wu Cangping, Member, Population Theory Research Institute, People's University. * Weng Dujian, Professor, Central Nationalities Academy. * Fu Maoji, Professor, Central Nationalities Academy. Wu Wenzao, Vice-president, CSRA; former chairman of sociology at Yenjing University; Professor of Central Nationalities Academy, but old and semi-retired. Li Jinghan, English name: Franklin Lee; advisor to the CSRA; a former collaborator of Sidney Gamble; very old and semi-retired. Wu Zelin, Professor, Central Nationalities Academy; advisor to the CSRA; by one account, he was trained at Wisconsin and Ohio State; old and semi-retired. Yang Kun, Researcher at the Institute of Nationalities, CASS; advisor to the CSRA; reportedly was a student of Durkheim, old and semi-retired. Hu Qingjun, Researcher, Institute of Nationalities, CASS; studied sociology-anthropology at Xinan Lianda;

311 N specialist on the Yi. Quan Weitian, Member-designate, Institute of Sociology, CASS; has done work on pre-liberation handicraft industries. Chen Hansheng, Advisor to CASS and to the SCRA; author of Landlord and Peasant in China. Dai Shiguang, Eminent demographic statistician; formerly affiliated with the Population Theory Institute, People's University, but reportedly teaches now in the Department of Planning Statistics of that university. Sun Jingzhi, Director, Population Research Group, Beijing Economics College; an economic geographer. Zhang Shuyuan, Member, Population Research Office, Department of Economics, Beijing University. Zhu Zhengzhi, Member, Population Research Office, Depart­ ment of Economics, Beijing University. Chan Qingzhen, Member, Population Research Office, Depart­ ment of Economics, Beijing University. Zhang Shenghong, Member, Population Research Office, Department of Economics, Beijing University. Hu Zhanying, Member, Population Research Office, Depart­ ment of Economics, Beijing University. Ma Yinchu, Former President, Beijing University, and now once again its honorary president; an eminent popu­ lation theorist; very old and semi-retired. Shi Guoheng, Sociologist and author of China Enters the Machine Age\ reported in the mid-1970s to be a librarian at Qinghua University; present circumstances uncertain. Yang Xuetong, Member, Population Theory Research Institute, People's University. Zha Ruichuan, Member, Population Theory Research Institute, People's University.

Chengdu, Sichuan Province:

* Zhang Tianwei, President, Southwest Nationalities Academy (SWNA). *Li Anzhai, Anthropologist known for his work prior to 1949 on Tibetan religion and on the Hopi Indians; after 1949 te taught English at Southwest Normal College; now a member of the standing committee of SWNA; reportedly about to be transferred to Beijing to serve as advisor to the Institute of Religion, CASS; advisor to the CSRA. *Du Pinguang, Researcher, Southwest Nationalities Research Institute (SWNRI).

312 * Chen Kang, Head, Tibetan Language Department, SWNA. * Meng Zhuchun, Lecturer, SWNA; member of the board of directors of the provincial philosophy association. * Chen Mingsheng, Lecturer, SWNA. * Zhou Guanying, Lecturer, SWNA. * Xie Zhili, Member, SWNRI. * Tao Chaoyang, Instructor, SWNA. * Chen Zongxiang, Lecturer, SWNA. * Shi Nongxin, Lecturer, SWNA; member, SWNRI. * Zhang Piliang, Staff, SWNA. * Wu Zhongguan, Lecturer, Sichuan Provincial Finance and Economics College; does work on population theory. * Zhang Shiwen, Economist affiliated with the Institute of Population, Sichuan University. * Li Shiping, Member, Sichuan University Department of History; member, Institute of Population, Sichuan University; does work on historical demography. Zhao Shili, Member, Institute of Population, Sichuan University. Shi Jian, Member, Institute of Population, Sichuan Univer­ sity. Cheng Enyuan, Archaeologist reportedly in the Department of History, Sichuan University; said to be interested in minority areas. Meng Mo, Member, Department of History, Sichuan Univer­ sity; has reportedly done work on history of the Yi nationality. Zhao Weibang, Former professor at Beijing University; now reportedly head of the library at Sichuan Univer­ sity; said to have a strong interest in national minorities. Xu Zhongshu, Member, Sichuan University Department of History; reportedly interested in studies of national minorities. Wang Wenhua, Member, SWNA. Zeng Wenjing, Member, SWNA. Li Shaoming, has reportedly studied the Yi; present affiliation is uncertain.

Nanj ing:

Ke Xiangfeng, said to have been chairman of Sociology at Jinan University; trained as a demographer at Prince­ ton before 1949; now affiliated with Department of Economics at Nanjing University, but old and semi­ retired . Han Rulin, Member, Department of History, Nanjing Univer-

313 sity; a specialist on Mongol history.

Shanghai;

*Chen Yu, Official of the Shanghai chapter of the Chinese Sociological Research Association (SSRA); librarian, Shanghai Normal University. * Huang Caiying, Member, Institute of Sociology (SIS) of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. *Xue Suzhen, Member, SIS; * Zheng Xinyong, Member, SSRA. *Wu Feidan, Professor, Department of Political Economy, Fudan University; president, Shanghai Population Theory Research Association. * Zhang Kaimin, Member, Departmental Economics Research Institute, Shanghai, Academy of Social Sciences; interested in population questions. *Huang Xianghong, Physical anthropologist working in the anthropology office of the Shanghai Natural History Museum. *Liu Xian, Phisical anthropologist in the Department of Biology, Fudan University. *Xia Jie, Member-designate, Department of Sociology, Fudan University branch campus; trained in law, but then taught Russian. * Pan Shuqi, Member-designate, Department of Sociology, Fudan University branch campus; trained in history. * Miao Xiaochun, Member, Depertment of Psychology, Shanghai Normal University; a researcher on child development, and particular on language acquisition; going abroad to study at Columbia. * Wu Feng, Member, Political Education Department, Shanghai Normal University; member, SSEA; interested in urban sociology. Fan Dingjiu, Member, SIS. Ying Chengyi, Member, SIS. Xiang Jiezeng, Member, SIS. Wang Youzhu, Member, SIS. Li Huaichun, Member, SIS. Chen Jinsheng, Member, SIS. Tao Yong, Member, SIS. Yan Xinzhe, Member, SIS; advisor, CSRA. Li Qingyun, Responsible person in future Department of Sociology, Fudan University branch campus. Yuan Jihui, Chairman-designate of future Department of Sociology, Fudan University branch campus. Liu Bingfu, Member-designate of future Department of

314 Sociology, Fudan University branch campus. Tian Rukang, Anthropologist in Department of History at Fudan University; on leave for the year at Cambridge University; may be affiliated with new Department of Sociology upon his return, but this is not certain; vice-president of the CSRA; author of The Chinese of Sarawak. Zhang Xunhua, Chairman of the Department of Political Economy, Fudan University, with an interest in popu­ lation matters. Yan Zhongmin, Affiliated with Shanghai Normal University, interested in population matters.

Guangzhou:

*He Zhaofa, Associate director, Institute of Southeast Asian History, Zhongshan University; trained in sociol °gy- * Huang Chaozhong, Member of Guangdong Nationalities Re­ search Institute. *Liang Zhaotao, Member of Zhongshan University Department of History; specializes in prehistoric archaeology. *Li Li, Member, Guangdong Provincial Population Research Institute. Zhu Tianguang, Director, Guangdong Provincial Population Research Institute. Liao Baoyun, Sociologist trained in demography at Chicago; reportedly has done woerk on the Li minority; present affiliation is unclear.

Locations not visited:

Gu Bao, Sociologist-anthropologist working at the National Minorities Research Institute in Urumqi, Xinjiang Province; has been engaged in a long-term study of social changes in that region. Ma Yue, Professor at Yunnan University in Kunming; Director of the local Nationalities Research Institute has studied Tai and Bai minorities, and is a Bai him­ self. Hou Fangyue, Director, Institute of History, Yunnan Univer sity, Kunming; has studied Miao and Yao monorities. Zhang Weichi, A sociologist, reportedly affiliated with a literature or ceramics institute, but details and location are unclear.

315